Whitman’s husband: That might be my handwriting but the letter doesn’t prove anything

posted at 7:59 pm on September 30, 2010 by Allahpundit

Here’s how I know this story won’t hurt her: If I’m this bored blogging about it, Californians must be doubly bored reading about it.

“While I honestly do not recall receiving this letter, as it was sent to me seven years ago, I can say it is possible that I would’ve scratched a follow up note on a letter like this, which is a request for information to make certain Nicky received her Social Security benefits and W-2 tax refund for withheld wages. Since we believed her to be legal, I would have had no reason to suspect that she would not have filled it in and done what was needed to secure her benefits.

“It is important to note what this letter actually says: ‘this letter makes no statement about your employee’s immigration status.’

“The essential fact remains the same, neither Meg nor I believed there was a problem with Nicky’s legal status and I certainly don’t recall ever discussing it with my wife, nor did I ever show her any letter about it. The facts of this matter are very clear: Ms. Diaz broke the law and lied to us and to the employment agency. When she confessed her deception to us last year, we ended her employment immediately. Meg and I played by the rules and followed the law. Ms. Diaz did not. If, as she claims, she received this letter and note of inquiry from me, she never answered my request to look into this. Instead, she choose to continue her deception. This entire matter is a sad one and it’s timing is clearly the result of a calculated and cynical political smear by Meg’s opponents.”

TMZ has a five-minute audio clip of the conference call her team held this afternoon running through her husband’s statement and explaining why the Social Security letter doesn’t really prove what Allred thinks it proves. (The first third of the clip is devoted to reading the statement, so skip that.) It helps to have a copy of the letter open in your browser to follow along; I’ve reproduced the key part below to make it easier.

Their defense, as I understand it, is to argue that this “red-flag no-match letter” from SSA didn’t actually raise any red flags about immigration. (As you can see above, the letter explicitly states that it “makes no statement about your employee’s immigration status.”) When you read it carefully, all it says is that there’s some recordkeeping discrepancy related to Diaz’s W-2, which could mean any number of things; her lawyer points out that Diaz acknowledged on page two of the document that she goes by two different names, which Whitman’s husband might have believed was the true cause of the mix-up.

Likewise, the section on recommended action asks employers to do little more than make sure the name and number on the employee’s Social Security card match the name and number in the SSA letter. That’s where I get confused, though: Did they match? Allred redacted the form for privacy reasons so we can’t tell if the number blacked out above matches the one on the bogus Social Security card that Diaz presented to the Whitmans. The whole point of a letter like this in the immigration context, I thought, is to tell the employer that the number being used by their employee is assigned to a different name in the SSA database. That’s why it’s known as a red-flag letter, yes? But without knowing what the database says — and there’s nothing about that on the form, as far as I see — there’s nothing for Whitman or her husband to compare Diaz’s information to. Essentially, they’re forced to compare Diaz’s false documents to Diaz’s recitation of the numbers on those false documents, which is moronic. Is that right, or have I misread something here?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

Yeah, you should have heard Alred on Levin. He wiped the floor with her. The top of the hour news just called Whitman and husband liars. Sorry that this will probably mean Gov. Moonbeam for us.Still it was great to hear Levin destroy Alred.

Yeah, you should have heard Alred on Levin. He wiped the floor with her. The top of the hour news just called Whitman and husband liars. Sorry that this will probably mean Gov. Moonbeam for us.Still it was great to hear Levin destroy Alred.

The thing we forget when we look forward to this election is that the media is very powerful and the fact is they vote demonratic. I am surprised what I hear on Fox news radio sometimes -and they are supposedly GOP friendly.

Bingo, Brown coordinated the story it looks like. Brown’s campaign knew about it way beforehand.

Meg Whitman accused the Brown campaign of being behind the housekeeper dust-up, saying she had heard a report from Bay Area television reporter Randy Shandobil that he was contacted about the matter two weeks ago.

Sterling Clifford, a spokesman for Jerry Brown, said he had spoken with Shandobil and others about rumors he heard that Whitman had hired undocumented workers. But he said the campaign had no knowledge of Diaz Santillan’s case until the story broke Wednesday.

Yeah, you should have heard Alred on Levin. He wiped the floor with her. The top of the hour news just called Whitman and husband liars. Sorry that this will probably mean Gov. Moonbeam for us.Still it was great to hear Levin destroy Alred.

sandee on September 30, 2010 at 8:02 PM

The same old playbook will not necessarily work this time around for the Progressives. Allred just let the entire world know that she’s 100% in with the Progressives and will likely pay a heavy price for it. The people are pissed off sandee the likes of which I have not seen in my 57 years of life.

and there’s nothing about that on the form, as far as I see — there’s nothing for Whitman or her husband to compare Diaz’s information to. Essentially, they’re forced to compare Diaz’s false documents to Diaz’s recitation of the numbers on those false documents, which is moronic. Is that right, or have I misread something here?

I believe that’s what some other posters were saying last night. It’s all so ridiculous that if the Whitman campaign was smart, they’d use it to sell tougher immigration laws (hell, even enforcing current immigration laws), even if Whitman herself is an amnesty shill.

Who would keep a letter for 7 and a half years that asks about their legal status?It makes no sense. Levin is saying she is going to use this to stay in the country. The poor thing. A lowly maid who made $23.00 an hour. I think a lot of Americans would love to make that money, or have any job for that matter.

This is a serious question. I worked closely with Jerry Brown for four years in Oakland, met with him two or three times a week and was in his office regularly for high level public safety meetings. The man is a drunk. I am not making this up. You had to meet with him in the mornings to get anything accomplished or decided. By lunchtime he was well in his cups…every day. And in the evenings he was at the same two or three “political” bars in Oakland or back at his loft with his weird, sexually harrassing sidekick Jaques Barzhagi getting well and truly oiled…every night. He recused himself from city council meetings because they were held in the evenings and Jerry was drunk by then. I don’t like this kind of attack campaigning, but this attack by Brown sickens me. So here’s my question…and it’s a serious one…To whom do I turn with this?

This is a serious question. I worked closely with Jerry Brown for four years in Oakland, met with him two or three times a week and was in his office regularly for high level public safety meetings. The man is a drunk. I am not making this up. You had to meet with him in the mornings to get anything accomplished or decided. By lunchtime he was well in his cups…every day. And in the evenings he was at the same two or three “political” bars in Oakland or back at his loft with his weird, sexually harrassing sidekick Jaques Barzhagi getting well and truly oiled…every night. He recused himself from city council meetings because they were held in the evenings and Jerry was drunk by then. I don’t like this kind of attack campaigning, but this attack by Brown sickens me. So here’s my question…and it’s a serious one…To whom do I turn with this?

Remember, this kind of thing was dropped on Arnold and the people of California showed the growing intelligence of the electorate by recognizing and ignoring the obviously last minute political attack. Let’s hope they show the same response this time as well.

I hope the people of California tell Allred and Brown to take a hike and thoroughly trash their attempt to throw an election.

Yeah, you should have heard Alred on Levin. He wiped the floor with her. The top of the hour news just called Whitman and husband liars. Sorry that this will probably mean Gov. Moonbeam for us.Still it was great to hear Levin destroy Alred.

sandee on September 30, 2010 at 8:02 PM

–
That was brutal. She avoided answering direct questions, pretended she didn’t hear or understand the question. Parsed her words. Tried to shout over Mark etc.
For those who missed it, I am sure Mark will have this tomorrow on his website.

So WHY is Allred bringing this up NOW? And don’t tell me it’s because she’s for the downtrodden. Today she said ‘another attorney referred Santillian to her. WHO was that? What does Santillian want from Whitman?

I don’t know if anyone’s mentioned this yet, but you know what? This does a terrible disservice to Latinos trying to get into the workplace. It says to people, yes, they might have all of their papers in order, but you still can’t trust them.

Work is the curse of the drinking class. Attack him for his policies, not his lifestyle.

Ordinarily I would agree with you, but I think it’s time to play the Democrats game.Besides, knowingly electing a person for Governor with this “problem ” would be wrong. It does explain they way he acts, though. In that debate he was incoherent.

The only concrete proof I have is my own observation of his behavior, and stink of booze on his breath. I’m not alone in this, many of us in the city department I was in witnessed this. It was widely known and recognized.

I dunno – to me this just proves Whitman’s point about immigration reform if she plays it right. Then casually mention that this is more a law enforcement issue for Jerry Brown WRT the employment agency than it is any sort of scandal.

I watched almost all of Meg Whitman’s presser on this on CSpan today, and either she’s the most sincere (and smartest) woman I’ve ever seen, or she’s an accomplished liar like you’ve never seen in your life. I tend towards the former.

So what? Anybody with half a brain would see the likelihood that there is an immigration issue after receiving a letter like that.

Mark1971 on September 30, 2010 at 8:23 PM

I don’t think Meg’s racist. Some people just never make the connection that just because you’re a Latina housemaid with a bad SS means that you’re illegal. The letter states specifically that it can’t be used to verify her immigration status, not only that, the letter also states that you can not take any adverse actions, i.e., termination once you have the letter. Federal law tied their hands. That’s why they’ve stopped issuing these letters.

That would explain why, when I met in in the late ’80s, he was wearing a black sweater, gray pants and brown shoes. Only a drunk or blind man could have put that outfit together. Oh, and when I met him, it was at my friend’s baby shower–he showed up alone.

Evidently he asked her to take care of it and she said she did. They have not shown any further letters, so Nikky either threw them away, or they didn’t send any more. That would make one feel the matter was closed wouldn’t it?

It wasn’t her responsibility to take care of it, it was Harsh’s or Whitman’s. It says at the top of the letter “Please complete the information on the reverse and return it to us promptly.”

Mark1971 on September 30, 2010 at 8:38 PM

The maid wasn’t required to show Whitman or her husband her SS card. It states that in the letter. She is only required to provide the number to him. He can’t ‘take care of it’, beyond providing the number she had already given them.

At the least, I think it’s starting to remove what little credibility she has as anything but an affirmative-action con artist.

Hugh Hewitt wiped the floor with her this morning so badly that she ditched the interview early, especially hitting her hard on the Arnold “grope-gate” allegations from before the recall election in 2003 and how the charges were eventually tossed out of court. She kept trying to parse it so that her client dropped the matter, not that the court told her to take a hike, but Hugh challenged her on every assertion of this kind.

The Levin interview seems to have been more of the same, though I haven’t read a transcript yet.

In short, it appears she’s being increasingly exposed as a crappy lawyer who takes high-profile cases for the publicity… which a lot of people already knew, but is becoming common knowledge now.

3. The only LEGAL action Alred is taking is for mileage expenses and unpaid hours over 15 (at $23/hr).

The ONLY reason for this action at this time is to attack Whitman and try to get ‘Moonbeam’ re-elected at the expense of the maid who faces up to 5 years in jail, fines, and deportation in exchange for expense money, when she was fired 1.5 years ago. Levin asked the right questions: why now? who contacted you from the Brown campaign, and who is paying you?

Yes, the Whitmans would write the “correct” number–the same one that La Puta falsified because the Whitmans don’t know any other possible SS number.

Apologetic California on September 30, 2010 at 8:56 PM

That is exactly what they should have done. They would have fulfilled their responsibility at that point. Why did he pass on the letter to the housekeeper anyway? It wasn’t addressed to her and it wasn’t her responsibility to fill it out and return it.

This is actually good for the repubics of Cali. I’d much rather have Moonbeam in charge so he can take this immigrant slime hole state further down the crapper. If Whitman was in charge, she would just fustrate the living hell out of me with her wishy-washy RINO ways!

Where’s ICE in all this mess. Allred’s always been a media whore. Isn’t it convenient that out of all the lawyers in CA, the maid chooses her. Did she actually come forward or did Brown’s cohorts do a search of Whitman’s former employees, found a Latino and used his office to do this search? More than meet the eye goin’ on here.

But doesn’t the letter itself spend five sentences warning the reader that it has nothing to do with the employees immigration status, and that if they take adverse action against the employeed because of the information contained in this letter they may be violating state and federal law and subject to legal consequences?

First the employee is vetted by the employment agency, and then the employers are warned not to do anything against the employee under threat of legal consequences. How far would any of you have gone?

And if Allred can make a firestorm over not doing anything as a result of the letter, imagine what enemies of any ilk would have done if the Whitmans had pushed her to act.

Allred is waving this letter around like John F’n Kerry’s hat, claiming it proves a bunch of crap, when it proves nothing except that Allred is a d’bag. After the letter warns the recipient that it is not cause for action, they expect her to have fired the maid.

Let’s hope this backfires on Brownie and Allred, they appear to be two of a kind. Anyone doubt that Brownie’s campaign was behind this?

If you are in California, employing a Latina housekeeper and receive one of these letters that likelihood is that it is an immigration issue.

Mark1971 on September 30, 2010 at 8:33 PM

What if you live in Arizona and have a Latina housekeeper and receive one of these letters? What to do?
Would the world call you racist? Maybe say that you are racial profiling. Maybe the President of Mexico would get another standing ovation by the Democrats. Maybe Obama would write a worded letter to the UN about you.
What to do?

Why is this even a story? I knew when Allred was teasing this the other day before her big conference that it was gonna be about an illegal domestic worker. *YAWN*

They did the right thing! They hired someone they had no reason to believe was not a legal immigrant, and then they canned her the moment they found out she wasn’t. Isn’t that what they were supposed to do? I don’t know how the media is even managing to make hay out of this. Most Californians of all stripes favor a tough stance on illegals. That being the case, I’m not sure how this is supposed to damage Whitman in their eyes. They’re probably thinking, “Right on! Let’s get this woman in office so we can pass a law like Arizona’s!” The only people who are going to be outrageously outraged by this non-story are moonbats who would never have voted for Whitman in the first place. I say this helps, not hurts, her with independents and undecideds.

They got the letter because they were trying to pay the Social Security tax. But their funds were rejected due to the mis-match. OK, then what about the Social Security payments from tax years 2003 to 2008? Obviously they got deposited to the Social Security account, whether it was bogus or not. If the payments are being accepted, then the mis-match must’ve been cleared up, no?

That is, THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ITSELF CONFIRMED HER LEGALITY. So, what’s the issue?

At least they were paying the Social Security for their domestic employee – unlike Zoe Baird, the Clinton administration nominee for attorney general.